In Mozilla's defence, design is iterative. You discuss your specs with the designers and they go away then come back with various designs. You then discuss what you like and what you don't, and they get back to you with more refined designs. Rinse and repeat until you get something you're happy with.

This is usually done behind closed doors and not out in the open so the public only see the final result.

The first one is too NSA-esque. The last one reminds me of Cubivore. For me that last one wins, because then they can sponsor an 'Cubivore 2' game to showcase browser tech. That game was awesome. Though, not likely. Still, it can sport several different images on the sides of each face.

If they're going for brand identity, they should keep the fieryfox-consuming-globe icon instead.

Of those Moz://a is the best, they will need to change the colors and style though, but the basic concept is the best

The fundamental flaw in a name brand like this, is that it looks awfully close to something you could type out. So people might legitimately try to type this into their browser. Not your average computer savvy fellow, but I assure you that my two-finger typing relatives will. And once they do type http://www.moz:lla.com into their address bar, they're going to get some sort of an error message.

Of those Moz://a is the best, they will need to change the colors and style though, but the basic concept is the best

The fundamental flaw in a name brand like this, is that it looks awfully close to something you could type out. So people might legitimately try to type this into their browser. Not your average computer savvy fellow, but I assure you that my two-finger typing relatives will. And once they do type http://www.moz:lla into their address bar, they're going to get some sort of an error message.

Try it. In Chrome and Firefox it leads to a search page. As does `moz://a`, etc.

One has to wonder why they would bother. If ever there was a group that sold out it's user base, Mozilla is it. First, they dropped support for Seamonkey, and then they foisted 'Australis' on us.

Oh, you don't know what 'Seamonkey' is...?? Remember Netscape, Seamonkey is the original Netscape. Prior to selling out to aol, 'beta' versions of Netscape were code named Seamonkey, and we all used the betas. After the disastrous sale to aol, Seamonkey became a community driven browser project under the Mozilla umbrella, until the pinheads over there decided to drop support for it to concentrate on their new baby, Firefox. That in and of itself might have been tolerable, had they not then gone and implemented the hated "australis" look, in a pathetic attempt to look more like Chrome. Oh, and they did this in spite of a shitstorm of negative comments which they themselves asked for, to the point where they simply started deleting each and every negative comment.

Mozilla is dying. They lost touch too long ago and made too many bad decisions. They're the YAHOO and Blackberry of open source software. Time for them all to leave and fade away and give the software to new blood to take their place and resurrect the software and brand.

Rebranding is a total waste of your time. Putting a shiny coat on will not do any good. Try fixing your application. Spend the time and effort there. I use Pale Moon which is a fork of Firefox. It is faster and more secure. Changing your logo is like trying to fix a flat tire with a bandaid.

Of those Moz://a is the best, they will need to change the colors and style though, but the basic concept is the best

The fundamental flaw in a name brand like this, is that it looks awfully close to something you could type out. So people might legitimately try to type this into their browser. Not your average computer savvy fellow, but I assure you that my two-finger typing relatives will. And once they do type http://www.moz:lla into their address bar, they're going to get some sort of an error message.

Try it. In Chrome and Firefox it leads to a search page. As does `moz://a`, etc.

I have always liked and used Firefox for years.I have no experience in professional design but I do like to doodle so I wish Mozilla had come to me first because I know my designs would been at least this good and cheaper.

Hey Mozilla! Pay a real marketing firm cause what you have so far is horrific. Design by committee will never work. A local semi-pro baseball team just named themselves the "Yard Goats" where their previous team name was the "Rock Cats". It was done by committee with suggestions from young children. You can't even keep a goat in the city per zoning regulations. My reaction to the name is disgusted. Due to political reasons the new ballpark is way over budget and work is halted as the contractors were fired. They practically built a major league park instead of a minor league park.

So pay for a brand marketing firm, their creatives know what they are doing. Your brand is extremely important. You should consider a new GUI for FireFox as well. Get some good UX designers. I am unhappy with most browsers and currently using mostly Safari. I want a minimalist GUI on a browser and if there must be GUI widgets let them be small or perhaps slide out of view till you need them. I would prefer keyboard shortcuts and gestures.

I have always liked and used Firefox for years.I have no experience in professional design but I do like to doodle so I wish Mozilla had come to me first because I know my designs would been at least this good and cheaper.

I wonder how much they paid the design studio to create these candidates. That seems like a profitable game to be in...

To paraphrase legend, I know good design when I see it, and this isn't it.

No kidding. I've both run and utilized creative content production, and NONE of these designs are commercial quality IMHO. If a design studio gave me these as concepts, I'd go hire a new studio, because they suck. The first one is the best, and it isn't THAT good. The rest go down hill from there! Option 2 MIGHT have some merit, but it requires some serious rethinking to make it less abstract, and I'm not sure that can be pulled off. Option 4 is at least readable and sort of 'cute' in a way, but again it certainly needs considerable refinement if its going to go anywhere. Number 1 I just don't see working, visually striking as it is. #3 is at least A LOGO, but what it has to do with Mozilla is beyond me... The rest lack basic design features of web-usable logos and can be discarded out of hand.

The internet is full of logos, and it is sometimes difficult to tell what you are looking at. Currently Mozilla has a big presence and its graphic style quite recognizable. You should be very careful about changing it. If you go too far how will we recognize you?

There have been some very famous (infamous?) debacles over logo changes, British Airways & British Telecom spring to mind, where the result was that unless you knew what you were looking at, the new version was unrecognizable. In the case of BT vans they became effectively invisible!

Back in the early 80's this happened to the video facility company I worked for in London. They had an instantly recognizable logo that could be spotted at a distance. The combination of the style of graphic, the typeface and the colors worked. The new logo was designed at some cost by Wolf Olins, and was different in every way. As a result nobody recognized it. Not quite as much of a disaster but still a lot of money was wasted tweaking it.

So I will say this to Mozilla. Do not change things for the sake of changing them. Some logos are timeless and longevity should be recognized as a good thing.

quit using mozilla years ago, got tired of them "new and improving" the interface until it became absolute crap. Didn't care for some of the under the hood changes either... made it easy to move away, but not too far, I use Palemoon and FossaMail now. New is not always good and old is not always bad, there is something to be said for stable.

The first one is just cheesy. The second one is cute but incomprehensible.The "open button" version shows some promise, but it's ugly as it is.The Moz://a logo *screams* "90s corporation". One of those failed dot-com companies.The wireframe logo looks like it's for an architectural firm, maybe. Or one of those "experimental tech research department" at a European university in the early '00s.The "big M" logo could be cute too but the colours are tacky, the patterns do not scale and it looks like something for a metro line anyway.The last one is just too contrived.